1. Open Source Euphoria, Wow.....
Well..... All I can say is.... wow.
Quite a bold move for ya Robert, to make Euphoria Open Source, one I am quite
happy to finally see happen. I know for a fact, that several of the reasons why
I left Euphoria, was for the simple fact of fixing bugs, and request features.
(That, and I have becomed an Object Oriented happy coder) But now, after all of
this time, of quietly lurking on the Boards, occasionally checking in on what I
see comming to light for the future of Euphoria, I must say, that this litterally
floored me when I saw it.
I just want to cover a few things here with you guys, that I've been reading
over as far as Licensing, and forks of Open Eu, and who owns the code, who
doesn't, and all that good stuff.
First: Licensing
In the best intrests of all thoes involved, the easiest way to solve this
problem, is to choose a license that is open, and free, and in no way restricting
future usage. Really, the only requirement that should ever be needed as far as
Copyright, and so forth, is the fact, that Robert Craig created the Original
Syntax, and Theories behind the Euphoria Language. And as such, is still the
main propriater of the Euphoria Language. Outside of that, open source, and
free, and all of that good stuff, should be that. Anyone is free to do whatever
they want, with whatever they want in the interpreter. You can't very well
expect source code to be open sourced, and not expect others to create their own
Forks of the Code.
Look at how many projects out there, that have been forked from so many other
projects, Apache, 90 Different IRCD Servers, Many different Email Servers,
Clients. So, to expect others not to create their own derivitave, then restrict
them on how they can do it, simply is not in the best intrest of Euphoria,
period. Euphoria will always remain open, as per the Original Released version
of Euphoria. There is a reason why there will be this sort of work done with
these types of languages.
While, yes, true, others will create great features for Euphoria, it's not
really a need to have open source, for Euphoria to Grow. I mean, look at the
interpreters that have come before, that worked with Euphoria Syntax, Bach, OOEu,
PEU. All of these had the same ideals, to parse Euphoria code into Machine Level
instructions, and execute them. The same thing that the Open Euphoria will do,
along with any derivitave that comes from that, so therefore, the method in which
this evolves, is the sole ownership of Robert Craig. (As in, the way Euphoria
Turns Words into Instructions)
Multiple Forks:
Yeah, right. Look at all of the different projects out there on SourceForge
alone. Alot of them do the same things as others. Really, you shouldn't expect
that there are going to be a few dozen derivitives of the language, once it goes
open source, but that is what makes it great, cause then, you can see what things
flourish, and what things don't. You can see what people use, and what people
don't use. Create things that someone else may not have thought of. That's the
entire ideal behind Open Source, not free software, but the ability to look at
the source code, know what it is doing, and if you happen to see a way to make it
work better, great!
Features: Required, or optional
This is always a problem with Programming Languages. What features should be
there, what features shouldn't. What features should you use, what features
shouldn't you use. What features your comfortable with, well, you get the idea.
This has always been personal choice. As in, up to the programmer. And this was
a major turn off for me, cause of me having to litterally re-invent the wheel
over and over again, to overcome some obstical to get something I wanted done.
Should every new feature that some programmer throws into the Euphoria
Interpreter be a requirement? Ofcourse not. After all, look at the Euphoria
Language itself. You use it, cause your comfortable with it. Other people use
C/C++, cause they are comfortable with it, I use Ruby, cause I'm comfortable with
it, and yes, there are even people who love the Hump method of Python and Perl.
Are you required to use thoes features, cause they are there? I mean, honestly,
in any program you write, do you use every single feature that Euphoria has, in
your program? I seriously, Seriously doubt it.
And another perfect example of this, Win32lib, wxEuphoria, EuWinGUI, ARWEN,
WinClass C++, Win32API Wrappers, And the many many more libraries out there for
GUI Programming. Oviously, your going to pick one that you are comfortable with,
that will work with what your targeting for. Do you have to use all of them?
No, cause you will use the one that works for you. So, just cause new features
are added, doesn't mean, you have to use them, if you don't want to. The same
remains true for Object Oriented Programming, if that ever comes around. The
language will still remain Procedual, cause that is the way the Language was
designed.
Anything added ontop of the interpreter, to make Object Oriented Programming
More sensable, weither it be Proto-typing Object Oriented, or Class-Based Object
Oriented, you will still remain to have the same thing, at the base core, it will
be Procedual, with stuff marked up to make Object Oriented a little more sane.
Well, that's all I have for now, once again, Rob, my hat off to you for making
this huge step in the right direction to allow your child to grow into something
for future programmers to see. I honestly didn't think you was ever going to do
it.
Mario Steele
http://enchantedblade.trilake.net
Attaining World Dominiation, one byte at a time...
2. Re: Open Source Euphoria, Wow.....
Mario Steele wrote:
>
> Well..... All I can say is.... wow.
>
> Quite a bold move for ya Robert, to make Euphoria Open Source, one I am quite
> happy to finally see happen. I know for a fact, that several of the reasons
> why I left Euphoria, was for the simple fact of fixing bugs, and request
> features.
> (That, and I have becomed an Object Oriented happy coder) But now, after all
> of this time, of quietly lurking on the Boards, occasionally checking in on
> what I see comming to light for the future of Euphoria, I must say, that this
> litterally floored me when I saw it.
>
> I just want to cover a few things here with you guys, that I've been reading
> over as far as Licensing, and forks of Open Eu, and who owns the code, who
> doesn't,
> and all that good stuff.
>
> First: Licensing
> In the best intrests of all thoes involved, the easiest way to solve this
> problem,
> is to choose a license that is open, and free, and in no way restricting
> future
> usage. Really, the only requirement that should ever be needed as far as
> Copyright,
> and so forth, is the fact, that Robert Craig created the Original Syntax, and
> Theories behind the Euphoria Language. And as such, is still the main
> propriater
> of the Euphoria Language. Outside of that, open source, and free, and all of
> that good stuff, should be that. Anyone is free to do whatever they want,
> with
> whatever they want in the interpreter. You can't very well expect source code
> to be open sourced, and not expect others to create their own Forks of the
> Code.
>
> Look at how many projects out there, that have been forked from so many other
> projects, Apache, 90 Different IRCD Servers, Many different Email Servers,
> Clients.
> So, to expect others not to create their own derivitave, then restrict them
> on how they can do it, simply is not in the best intrest of Euphoria, period.
> Euphoria will always remain open, as per the Original Released version of
> Euphoria.
> There is a reason why there will be this sort of work done with these types
> of languages.
>
> While, yes, true, others will create great features for Euphoria, it's not
> really
> a need to have open source, for Euphoria to Grow. I mean, look at the
> interpreters
> that have come before, that worked with Euphoria Syntax, Bach, OOEu, PEU. All
> of these had the same ideals, to parse Euphoria code into Machine Level
> instructions,
> and execute them. The same thing that the Open Euphoria will do, along with
> any derivitave that comes from that, so therefore, the method in which this
> evolves, is the sole ownership of Robert Craig. (As in, the way Euphoria
> Turns
> Words into Instructions)
>
> Multiple Forks:
>
> Yeah, right. Look at all of the different projects out there on SourceForge
> alone. Alot of them do the same things as others. Really, you shouldn't
> expect
> that there are going to be a few dozen derivitives of the language, once it
> goes open source, but that is what makes it great, cause then, you can see
> what
> things flourish, and what things don't. You can see what people use, and what
> people don't use. Create things that someone else may not have thought of.
> That's the entire ideal behind Open Source, not free software, but the
> ability
> to look at the source code, know what it is doing, and if you happen to see
> a way to make it work better, great!
>
> Features: Required, or optional
>
> This is always a problem with Programming Languages. What features should be
> there, what features shouldn't. What features should you use, what features
> shouldn't you use. What features your comfortable with, well, you get the
> idea.
> This has always been personal choice. As in, up to the programmer. And this
> was a major turn off for me, cause of me having to litterally re-invent the
> wheel over and over again, to overcome some obstical to get something I wanted
> done.
>
> Should every new feature that some programmer throws into the Euphoria
> Interpreter
> be a requirement? Ofcourse not. After all, look at the Euphoria Language
> itself.
> You use it, cause your comfortable with it. Other people use C/C++, cause
> they are comfortable with it, I use Ruby, cause I'm comfortable with it, and
> yes, there are even people who love the Hump method of Python and Perl. Are
> you required to use thoes features, cause they are there? I mean, honestly,
> in any program you write, do you use every single feature that Euphoria has,
> in your program? I seriously, Seriously doubt it.
>
> And another perfect example of this, Win32lib, wxEuphoria, EuWinGUI, ARWEN,
> WinClass C++, Win32API Wrappers, And the many many more libraries out there
> for GUI Programming. Oviously, your going to pick one that you are
> comfortable
> with, that will work with what your targeting for. Do you have to use all of
> them? No, cause you will use the one that works for you. So, just cause new
> features are added, doesn't mean, you have to use them, if you don't want to.
> The same remains true for Object Oriented Programming, if that ever comes
> around.
> The language will still remain Procedual, cause that is the way the Language
> was designed.
>
> Anything added ontop of the interpreter, to make Object Oriented Programming
> More sensable, weither it be Proto-typing Object Oriented, or Class-Based
> Object
> Oriented, you will still remain to have the same thing, at the base core, it
> will be Procedual, with stuff marked up to make Object Oriented a little more
> sane.
>
> Well, that's all I have for now, once again, Rob, my hat off to you for making
> this huge step in the right direction to allow your child to grow into
> something
> for future programmers to see. I honestly didn't think you was ever going to
> do it.
>
> Mario Steele
> <a
> href="http://enchantedblade.trilake.net">http://enchantedblade.trilake.net</a>
> Attaining World Dominiation, one byte at a time...
Hi Mario,
I think it's an interesting step in the progress of Eu too.
The only strange thing now is that everyone is going to be making
their own interpreter so i think some of the e,ew,ex,exw code they
contribute will be using their interpreter, so people using
it will have to use their interpreter to run it.
Take care,
Al
E boa sorte com sua programacao Euphoria!
My bumper sticker: "I brake for LED's"
From "Black Knight":
"I can live with losing the good fight,
but i can not live without fighting it".
"Well on second thought, maybe not."
